Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/269

 appended to the ground-form, e.g.,. In the feminine the dual termination is always added to the old ending ath (instead of ), but necessarily with ā (since it is in an open syllable before the tone), thus, e.g. ,. From a feminine with the ending, e.g. (from neḥušt) the dual is formed like.

With nouns which in the singular have not a feminine ending, the dual termination is likewise really added to the ground-form; but the latter generally undergoes certain changes in consequence of the shifting of the tone, e.g. (ground-form kănăph), dual, the first ă becoming , since it no longer stands before the tone, and the second ă being lengthened before the new tone-syllable. In, b the form (which should be ) evidently merely points to the ''constr. st''. , which would be expected before ; cf. in a, and on the syntax see. In the segholate forms the dual ending is mostly added to the ground-form, e.g.  (ground-form răgl), dual ; cf., however,  (only in the book of Daniel), as well as  from, and  from  (as if from the plurals , ).—A feminine dual of an adjective used substantivally occurs in  (of hands)  from the sing. .

Rem. 1. Certain place-names were formerly reckoned as dual-forms (so in earlier editions of this Grammar, and still in König’s, ii. 437), viz.— (a) those in and , e.g.   (locative , but in  ), and  ;  , identical with  in  (cf. also the Moabite names of towns in the Mêša‛ inscription, line 10  = Hebrew ; line 30  =  ; lines 31, 32 = , &c.); (b) in ,   ( =  ). The view that and  arise from a contraction of the dual terminations  (as in Western Aramaic, cf. also nom. âni, accus. aini, of the dual in Arabic) and  seemed to be supported by the Mêša‛; inscription, where we find (line 20)  =, Hebrew. But in many of these supposed duals either a dual sense cannot be detected at all, or it does not agree at any rate with the nature of the Semitic dual, as found elsewhere. Hence it can hardly be doubted that and  in these place-names only arise from a subsequent expansion of the terminations  and : so Wellhausen, Jahrbücher für Deutsche Theologie, xxi. 433; Philippi, xxxii. 65 f.; Barth,, p. 319, note 5; Strack, Kommentar zur Genesis, p. 135. The strongest argument in favour of this opinion is that we have a clear case of such an expansion in the Qerê perpetuum  for  (so, according to Strack, even in old MSS. of the Mišna; cf. Urusalim in the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, and the Aramaic form ): similarly in